ORDER
Gordon Stone appeals from the motion courts judgment denying his amended Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Stone claims that the motion court erred in denying his amended post-conviction motion without an evidentiary hearing because an evidentiary hearing was required in that each of Stones claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel were not conclusively refuted by the record and Stone was prejudiced. We disagree, conclude there is no precedential value in our ruling today, and affirm the motion courts judgment. Pursuant to Rule 84.16(b), we provide the parties an unpublished memorandum to explain our ruling.
PER CURIAM: